It is strange to make the purchase of a pair of running shoes as a landmark in 2020, but it context it is probably one of the two steps that would signify confidence in my recovery from injury. I had been very judicious with spending for the first half of the year. With the dread of this unshakeable niggle, I started to doubt whether I'd be training let alone racing.
It started in November and after some testing, and trying various exercises, scanning with x-rays and ultrasound, I decided to give it three months to recover. But it didn't. If constant quarantine did something though it gave me regular walking and the time to dabble with run/walk. With that came successes as well as frustrations and, at the end of the day, progress. My running picked up in April and May and then in early June I got an unexpected reminder: I had a race in two weeks.
Run Auckland events have been a very regular annual series for me, moreso than the Mizuno Half Marathon series which I wish I were doing more of. Run Auckland is cheap, local and social; an event every three weeks leading up to the Millwater Half (where I have done my second and third fastest halves). It should have started in April but the organisers took a punt in March to have re-organised to start in June. And the pitched it to perfection, as if they knew that Level 1 would start when it did.
The rejig put the punishing Sanders Reserve 10km first and yesterday I ran it. It was my second time on this particular course: I missed it due to travel one year, and deliberately chose not to do it another year. It is two laps over a mountain bike course with constant undulation. I'm no afraid of hills but in my very first year my lack of aversion cost me when I wiped out at the bottom of clay slope. Fortunately I lost skin, had some dramatic stigmata-esque palms but I still managed to keep going and finish. That year I didn't pace it right struggling toward the end: the first lap I did at 23:19, the second 24:03. I thought I'd learned this time and felt I took it more moderately and up the hills really slowly and my lack of fitness still bit at the end. Surprisingly I pretty much got the same times, just slower at the end: 23:21 and 24:42. I didn't really feel any niggles. So I bought some shoes.
The only other thing that can top this as a sign would be my entry into the Auckland Marathon in October. We'll see.
Monday, June 22, 2020
Saturday, June 20, 2020
The monk, part 2
Did I say that Chuangtzu was a monk? I hope I didn't imply it with these titles. It's what happens when a random working title that came to mind when thinking about lockdown life had a cross-over meaning to someone in philosophical reflection.
Anyhow, in the first part I spoke how the title of my favourite chapter of Chuangtzu (Zhuangzi) was The Equality of Things in the version I read when in university but for the translation that I'm using for the purposes of this blog had it as The Adjustment of Controversies. The below is the immediate next text following the part from part 1 with nothing left out. I'd say that this particular section has it moving from controversies to the equality of things. Here it is (with small edits by me) with commentary below.
Were there no other, there could be no I. Were there no I, there could be nobody to do the apprehending.That is close to the truth, yet I do not know what runs this process. It seems that there is a true ruler, and yet there is a singular lack of actual evidence of its presence.
Given the body, with its hundred parts, its nine openings, and its six viscera, all complete in their places, which do you love the most? Do you love them all equally? Or do you love some more than others? Is it not the case that they all perform the part of your servants and waiting women? All of them being such, are they not incompetent to rule one another? Or do they take it in turns to be now ruler and now servants? There must be a true ruler among them whether by searching you can find out his character or not; there is neither advantage nor hurt, so far as the truth of his operation is concerned. When once we have received the bodily form complete, its parts do not fail to perform their functions till the end comes. In conflict with things or in harmony with them, they pursue their course to the end, with the speed of a galloping horse which cannot be stopped — is it not sad? To be constantly toiling all one's lifetime, without seeing the fruit of one's labour, and to be weary and worn out with his labour, without knowing where he is going to — Is it not a deplorable case? Men may say, 'But it is not death;' yet of what advantage is this? When the body is decomposed, the mind will be the same along with it — Must not the case be pronounced very deplorable? Is the life of man indeed enveloped in such darkness? Is it I alone to whom it appears so? And does it not appear to be so to other men?
If we were to follow the judgments of the predetermined mind, who would be left alone and without a teacher? Not only would it be so with those who know the sequences of knowledge and feeling and make their own selection among them, but it would be so as well with the stupid and unthinking. For one who has not this determined mind, to have his affirmations and negations is like the case described in the saying, 'He went to Yueh today, and arrived there yesterday.' It would be making what was not a fact to be a fact. But even the sage like Yu could not have known how to do this, and how should one like me be able to do it?
But speech is not like the blowing of the wind; the speaker has a meaning in his words. If, however, what he says, be indeterminate, as from a mind not made up, does he then really speak or not? He thinks that his words are different from the chirpings of fledgelings; but is there any distinction between them or not? But how can the Tao be so obscured, that there should be 'a True' and 'a False' in it? How can speech be so obscured that there should be 'the Right' and 'the Wrong' about them? Where shall the Tao go to that it will not be found? Where shall speech be found that it will be inappropriate? Tao becomes obscured through the small comprehension of the mind, and speech comes to be obscure through the vain-gloriousness of the speaker. So it is that we have the contentions between the Literati and the Mohists, the one side affirming what the other denies, and vice versa. If we would decide on their several affirmations and denials, no plan is like bringing the proper light of the mind to bear on them.
All subjects may be looked at from two points of view from that and from this. If I look at a thing from another's point of view, I do not see it; only as I know it myself, do I know it. Hence it is said, 'That view comes from this; and this view is a consequence of that' — which is the theory that that view and this opposite view — produce each the other. Although it be so, there is affirmed now life and now death; now death and now life; now the admissibility of a thing and now its inadmissibility; now its inadmissibility and now its admissibility. The disputants now affirm and now deny; now deny and now affirm. Therefore sagely man does not pursue this method, but views things in the light of his Heavenly nature, and hence forms his judgment of what is right.
This view is the same as that, and that view is the same as this. But that view involves both a right and a wrong; and this view involves also a right and a wrong — are there, indeed, or are there not the two views, that and this? They have not found their point of correspondency which is called the pivot of the Tao. As soon as one finds this pivot, he stands in the centre of the ring of thought, where he can respond without end to the changing views — without end to those affirming, and without end to those denying. Therefore I said, 'There is nothing like the proper light of the mind.'
By means of a finger of my own to illustrate that the finger of another is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not so by means of what is acknowledged to be not a finger; and by means of what I call a horse to illustrate that what another calls a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not a horse, by means of what is acknowledged to be not a horse. All things in heaven and earth may be dealt with as a finger; Each of their myriads may be dealt with as a horse. Does a thing seem so to me? I say that it is so. Does it seem not so to me? I say that it is not so. A path is formed by constant treading on the ground. A thing is called by its name through the constant application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything has its inherent character and its proper capability. There is nothing which has not these. Therefore, this being so, if we take a stalk of grain and a large pillar, a loathsome leper and a beauty like Hsi Shih, things large and things insecure, things crafty and things strange —they may in the light of the Tao all be reduced to the same category of opinion about them.
It was separation that led to completion; from completion ensued dissolution. But all things, without regard to their completion and dissolution, may again be comprehended in their unity — it is only the far reaching in thought who know how to comprehend them in this unity. This being so, let us give up our devotion to our own views, and occupy ourselves with the ordinary views. These ordinary views are grounded on the use of things. The study of that use leads to the comprehensive judgment, and that judgment secures the success of the inquiry. That success gained, we are near to the object of our search, and there we stop. When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Tao.
Zhuangzi builds from the duality of thoughts and perceptions, that if you are alone, or your ideas are in a vacuum, you cannot know what you are, or what your ideas are. Until someone else apprehends them, they are formless. Then onto plurality of elements within a system, but whether singularity, duality or plurality, that there is no "ruler" no supreme being or standard which can absolutely rule over them and define what is high and low, right or wrong. Of all the major organs in the body which do you love them most? Any love or preference is for nought because without any one there cannot be the other. And from the analogy of viscera, you can analogise back to people. Your organs might be your "servants" but servants in real life should be no less noble than their masters. And the pluralism of organs is like the plurality of society, where we all have different roles; or the plurality of ideas in contention, where ideas only gain their form through the challenge of others. Yet at the end of the day, there is a cloud of uncertainty over them - which is king and which is true. There is always a heart of relativity despite the veneer of absolutism. Every idea is equally not quite right.
While he might not delve into the rights or wrongs of ideas, he does see superior ways for which ideas and things can be perceived. The true light of mind must hold both something being true, yet possibly false. It must stand back to see the unity of the issue, and not just a part. It should not be swayed by "judgements" but rather what it actually is and does - "an ordinary view" as it is translated. It sounds like a dispassionate, objective approach. Just like pressure points, everything has its own pivot point, where you can go to best consistently view the reality of things, regardless of the changes about it. That's the place to occupy. That's the place to be.
Even though this section didn't have the same groovy characters as the first part, there will be more later in the chapter.
Anyhow, in the first part I spoke how the title of my favourite chapter of Chuangtzu (Zhuangzi) was The Equality of Things in the version I read when in university but for the translation that I'm using for the purposes of this blog had it as The Adjustment of Controversies. The below is the immediate next text following the part from part 1 with nothing left out. I'd say that this particular section has it moving from controversies to the equality of things. Here it is (with small edits by me) with commentary below.
Were there no other, there could be no I. Were there no I, there could be nobody to do the apprehending.That is close to the truth, yet I do not know what runs this process. It seems that there is a true ruler, and yet there is a singular lack of actual evidence of its presence.
Given the body, with its hundred parts, its nine openings, and its six viscera, all complete in their places, which do you love the most? Do you love them all equally? Or do you love some more than others? Is it not the case that they all perform the part of your servants and waiting women? All of them being such, are they not incompetent to rule one another? Or do they take it in turns to be now ruler and now servants? There must be a true ruler among them whether by searching you can find out his character or not; there is neither advantage nor hurt, so far as the truth of his operation is concerned. When once we have received the bodily form complete, its parts do not fail to perform their functions till the end comes. In conflict with things or in harmony with them, they pursue their course to the end, with the speed of a galloping horse which cannot be stopped — is it not sad? To be constantly toiling all one's lifetime, without seeing the fruit of one's labour, and to be weary and worn out with his labour, without knowing where he is going to — Is it not a deplorable case? Men may say, 'But it is not death;' yet of what advantage is this? When the body is decomposed, the mind will be the same along with it — Must not the case be pronounced very deplorable? Is the life of man indeed enveloped in such darkness? Is it I alone to whom it appears so? And does it not appear to be so to other men?
If we were to follow the judgments of the predetermined mind, who would be left alone and without a teacher? Not only would it be so with those who know the sequences of knowledge and feeling and make their own selection among them, but it would be so as well with the stupid and unthinking. For one who has not this determined mind, to have his affirmations and negations is like the case described in the saying, 'He went to Yueh today, and arrived there yesterday.' It would be making what was not a fact to be a fact. But even the sage like Yu could not have known how to do this, and how should one like me be able to do it?
But speech is not like the blowing of the wind; the speaker has a meaning in his words. If, however, what he says, be indeterminate, as from a mind not made up, does he then really speak or not? He thinks that his words are different from the chirpings of fledgelings; but is there any distinction between them or not? But how can the Tao be so obscured, that there should be 'a True' and 'a False' in it? How can speech be so obscured that there should be 'the Right' and 'the Wrong' about them? Where shall the Tao go to that it will not be found? Where shall speech be found that it will be inappropriate? Tao becomes obscured through the small comprehension of the mind, and speech comes to be obscure through the vain-gloriousness of the speaker. So it is that we have the contentions between the Literati and the Mohists, the one side affirming what the other denies, and vice versa. If we would decide on their several affirmations and denials, no plan is like bringing the proper light of the mind to bear on them.
All subjects may be looked at from two points of view from that and from this. If I look at a thing from another's point of view, I do not see it; only as I know it myself, do I know it. Hence it is said, 'That view comes from this; and this view is a consequence of that' — which is the theory that that view and this opposite view — produce each the other. Although it be so, there is affirmed now life and now death; now death and now life; now the admissibility of a thing and now its inadmissibility; now its inadmissibility and now its admissibility. The disputants now affirm and now deny; now deny and now affirm. Therefore sagely man does not pursue this method, but views things in the light of his Heavenly nature, and hence forms his judgment of what is right.
This view is the same as that, and that view is the same as this. But that view involves both a right and a wrong; and this view involves also a right and a wrong — are there, indeed, or are there not the two views, that and this? They have not found their point of correspondency which is called the pivot of the Tao. As soon as one finds this pivot, he stands in the centre of the ring of thought, where he can respond without end to the changing views — without end to those affirming, and without end to those denying. Therefore I said, 'There is nothing like the proper light of the mind.'
By means of a finger of my own to illustrate that the finger of another is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not so by means of what is acknowledged to be not a finger; and by means of what I call a horse to illustrate that what another calls a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not a horse, by means of what is acknowledged to be not a horse. All things in heaven and earth may be dealt with as a finger; Each of their myriads may be dealt with as a horse. Does a thing seem so to me? I say that it is so. Does it seem not so to me? I say that it is not so. A path is formed by constant treading on the ground. A thing is called by its name through the constant application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything has its inherent character and its proper capability. There is nothing which has not these. Therefore, this being so, if we take a stalk of grain and a large pillar, a loathsome leper and a beauty like Hsi Shih, things large and things insecure, things crafty and things strange —they may in the light of the Tao all be reduced to the same category of opinion about them.
It was separation that led to completion; from completion ensued dissolution. But all things, without regard to their completion and dissolution, may again be comprehended in their unity — it is only the far reaching in thought who know how to comprehend them in this unity. This being so, let us give up our devotion to our own views, and occupy ourselves with the ordinary views. These ordinary views are grounded on the use of things. The study of that use leads to the comprehensive judgment, and that judgment secures the success of the inquiry. That success gained, we are near to the object of our search, and there we stop. When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Tao.
Zhuangzi builds from the duality of thoughts and perceptions, that if you are alone, or your ideas are in a vacuum, you cannot know what you are, or what your ideas are. Until someone else apprehends them, they are formless. Then onto plurality of elements within a system, but whether singularity, duality or plurality, that there is no "ruler" no supreme being or standard which can absolutely rule over them and define what is high and low, right or wrong. Of all the major organs in the body which do you love them most? Any love or preference is for nought because without any one there cannot be the other. And from the analogy of viscera, you can analogise back to people. Your organs might be your "servants" but servants in real life should be no less noble than their masters. And the pluralism of organs is like the plurality of society, where we all have different roles; or the plurality of ideas in contention, where ideas only gain their form through the challenge of others. Yet at the end of the day, there is a cloud of uncertainty over them - which is king and which is true. There is always a heart of relativity despite the veneer of absolutism. Every idea is equally not quite right.
While he might not delve into the rights or wrongs of ideas, he does see superior ways for which ideas and things can be perceived. The true light of mind must hold both something being true, yet possibly false. It must stand back to see the unity of the issue, and not just a part. It should not be swayed by "judgements" but rather what it actually is and does - "an ordinary view" as it is translated. It sounds like a dispassionate, objective approach. Just like pressure points, everything has its own pivot point, where you can go to best consistently view the reality of things, regardless of the changes about it. That's the place to occupy. That's the place to be.
Even though this section didn't have the same groovy characters as the first part, there will be more later in the chapter.
Sunday, June 14, 2020
Some brief Level 1 thoughts
I'm going to do blogs on all parts of The Equality of Things, perhaps one blog per week. In the meantime, my mind hasn't left the pandemic. It had a period of fatigue but I can't help but look. It's the trainwreck that keeps on giving. Also, some of the voices in my virtual vicinity are still musing the rights and wrongs of the now very much concluded lockdown and re-opening of New Zealand's economy, usually with comparison to the effects of other countries, and also the suggestions of an earlier opening of the border. I haven't engaged any of the people in discussion but I really think people generally either engage in false equivalencies and/or don't think through probabilities.
The obvious point is that before any approaches used in different places are compared, you have to take into account the differences use there. Everyone likes to think the comparisons of, say, New Zealand and Australia, or NZ and the UK are fair, but there is no such thing. If I, as a complete non-epidemiologist, were to list the different factors that would affect how different states/countries experienced this outbreak:
- how many infected people were in the country before measures were taken
- how long before measures were taken
- the cultural and environmental background of each places (close living conditions, mask-wearing habits, outside vs. inside lifestyles and working environments)
- the adherence to measures
- the relative effect of seasons
All of these radically change how appropriate different measures would be and also what "success" and "failure" would look like.
New Zealand dodged bullets prior to the 3 February blocking of Chinese citizens (without NZ residency) into New Zealand, and the self-isolation of residents and citizens from there. If cases did arrive, they didn't spread it. There is evidence that infected people got to France, the United States and England well before the virus was even widely known in China. To my knowledge none of our cases or community spread originate back to an imported case from China. The UK and the US with their international hubs of London and New York were always odds-on to get cases or to have already gotten significant cases both before and after taking measures.
Sweden was often raised as a counterpoint to the lockdowns implemented by most of the western world and initially had lower cases and deaths than some of the others above, but they were incidentally less exposed to imported infections. There were no land borders with hotspots. Stockholm, the largest city, is not a travel hub. Even though you'd think it was as likely as say, Iran, to get infectious Chinese cases. Their first case was well before New Zealand's arriving in Sweden on 24 January, but it was over a month before the second case came. Sweden is slowly having it burn through: its morality rate per million has eased passed France. Given another month, and presuming the continued trend, it may overhaul Italy and Spain.
Mortality is also probabilistic. New Zealand's mortality rate is pretty dismal but is overrepresented by two nursing homes. Basically, a western country's numerical success with controlling the virus is really just shown by your ability to keep it out of nursing homes. What was the realistic odds on two having substantial outbreaks? Maybe it was most likely one, but with chances of zero and two. Two countries with the same approach and background, through probability alone might have zero and two nursing homes hit and a huge disparity in their mortality. It would be ridiculous to make comparisons unless one was more blaise about regulations for those facilities.
Hindsight is still a source of conceit for many, forgetting that when the decisions were made, it was not done with supernatural foresight. It was done by leaders with skin-in-the-game. If they get it wrong, they would be pilloried. Experts out of government or leadership are liberated to choose the approach that suits their own analyses; and progressively change their prescriptions and critiques as more information comes to hand. Back in the early stages I remember being quite proud of the approach taken because it made sense and was clear. But there was immediate criticism of New Zealand's approach because of Australia's apparent success with a lighter lockdown. But no-one could tell which approach would work best. If there was one thing about the "strictest measures in the world" in NZ, it was a path to elimination. We still have a theoretical probability of another case, to Tbe clear, but anything less that a stringent lockdown leaves a probability of further cases in the non-lockdown state both Australia and New Zealand are in. Yesterday there were 12 more new cases, and today 18 new cases, including a GP who acquired it from the community. And if you want an analogous transtasman contrast this podcast talks about a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Melbourne who tested positive.
A lot of the Plan B'ers had assumptions that a lighter approach would keep more economic activity, but it has always been a difficult prediction to make. If we, and the rest of the world, had an ongoing outbreak, would we have any tourists even with the border open? Would International students still come? In some ways, Covid or no Covid, our economy is going to be hammered. But perhaps the benefits of elimination were not accentuated: Whereas other countries are playing sport without crowds, New Zealand is having its games with packed stadiums, and the benefits for the economy that brings. As I have stated pre-lockdown, New Zealand could get a positive boost as a clean educational destination as we could scoop learners seeking a safe place to study once the border is open. Now all we need is some pragmatism with the border...
The obvious point is that before any approaches used in different places are compared, you have to take into account the differences use there. Everyone likes to think the comparisons of, say, New Zealand and Australia, or NZ and the UK are fair, but there is no such thing. If I, as a complete non-epidemiologist, were to list the different factors that would affect how different states/countries experienced this outbreak:
- how many infected people were in the country before measures were taken
- how long before measures were taken
- the cultural and environmental background of each places (close living conditions, mask-wearing habits, outside vs. inside lifestyles and working environments)
- the adherence to measures
- the relative effect of seasons
All of these radically change how appropriate different measures would be and also what "success" and "failure" would look like.
New Zealand dodged bullets prior to the 3 February blocking of Chinese citizens (without NZ residency) into New Zealand, and the self-isolation of residents and citizens from there. If cases did arrive, they didn't spread it. There is evidence that infected people got to France, the United States and England well before the virus was even widely known in China. To my knowledge none of our cases or community spread originate back to an imported case from China. The UK and the US with their international hubs of London and New York were always odds-on to get cases or to have already gotten significant cases both before and after taking measures.
But Italy, Belgium and Iran were the famous early examples that were the first outbreaks outside of China. They were essentially ambushed by stealthy outbreaks that were already of scale well before testing was set up. I do not know if anyone can tell you the sequence of events or exactly why those two countries in particular felt the burn before other more likely countries to be epicentres. From a complete layperson, I'd say that it was all in the realms of "probabilities". Think about it: according to the presumed narrative of the virus, either by error or evolution, this novel coronavirus started spreading in Wuhan in late 2019. Not everyone had it. Nor would everyone have it. Only a relatively small proportion of the people infected would have had the plans on an international flight; but even if they weren't, they might be meeting other people who are or, more likely, travelling domestically and then giving it to others who might be travelling internationally. In the realms of the odds, all countries were rolling the dice with their open borders and international flights. Italy and Iran rolled snakes' eyes.
Sweden was often raised as a counterpoint to the lockdowns implemented by most of the western world and initially had lower cases and deaths than some of the others above, but they were incidentally less exposed to imported infections. There were no land borders with hotspots. Stockholm, the largest city, is not a travel hub. Even though you'd think it was as likely as say, Iran, to get infectious Chinese cases. Their first case was well before New Zealand's arriving in Sweden on 24 January, but it was over a month before the second case came. Sweden is slowly having it burn through: its morality rate per million has eased passed France. Given another month, and presuming the continued trend, it may overhaul Italy and Spain.
Mortality is also probabilistic. New Zealand's mortality rate is pretty dismal but is overrepresented by two nursing homes. Basically, a western country's numerical success with controlling the virus is really just shown by your ability to keep it out of nursing homes. What was the realistic odds on two having substantial outbreaks? Maybe it was most likely one, but with chances of zero and two. Two countries with the same approach and background, through probability alone might have zero and two nursing homes hit and a huge disparity in their mortality. It would be ridiculous to make comparisons unless one was more blaise about regulations for those facilities.
Hindsight is still a source of conceit for many, forgetting that when the decisions were made, it was not done with supernatural foresight. It was done by leaders with skin-in-the-game. If they get it wrong, they would be pilloried. Experts out of government or leadership are liberated to choose the approach that suits their own analyses; and progressively change their prescriptions and critiques as more information comes to hand. Back in the early stages I remember being quite proud of the approach taken because it made sense and was clear. But there was immediate criticism of New Zealand's approach because of Australia's apparent success with a lighter lockdown. But no-one could tell which approach would work best. If there was one thing about the "strictest measures in the world" in NZ, it was a path to elimination. We still have a theoretical probability of another case, to Tbe clear, but anything less that a stringent lockdown leaves a probability of further cases in the non-lockdown state both Australia and New Zealand are in. Yesterday there were 12 more new cases, and today 18 new cases, including a GP who acquired it from the community. And if you want an analogous transtasman contrast this podcast talks about a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Melbourne who tested positive.
A lot of the Plan B'ers had assumptions that a lighter approach would keep more economic activity, but it has always been a difficult prediction to make. If we, and the rest of the world, had an ongoing outbreak, would we have any tourists even with the border open? Would International students still come? In some ways, Covid or no Covid, our economy is going to be hammered. But perhaps the benefits of elimination were not accentuated: Whereas other countries are playing sport without crowds, New Zealand is having its games with packed stadiums, and the benefits for the economy that brings. As I have stated pre-lockdown, New Zealand could get a positive boost as a clean educational destination as we could scoop learners seeking a safe place to study once the border is open. Now all we need is some pragmatism with the border...
Thursday, June 11, 2020
The monk, with commentary
Though there has been seclusion in all this lockdown periods I don't think I have nourished my mind much. In China I managed to read some books but nothing that really sparked wider thoughts. Now with my life really spinning only two tracks, work and running, I don't feel much more is pushing my ideas about the world. Running, while there is a sense of overcoming my recent injuries and the sense of picking myself back up, is a physical tempering but not a mental one. Work, while I am learning a lot and entering new domains, hasn't really changed my view of the world, of people, of things that matter. Even though the world has certainly had more than its fair share of flu and flux, most of the happenings have reinforced my ideas more than stirred stuff up.
Perhaps it's the 40 thing. In Chinese, there is a saying: 四十而不惑, which means that once you're forty, you are clear about the world. Maybe there comes a point where it's just so much harder to surprise you with an idea when you've seen so many things before.
I remember when I was almost twenty reading Chinese philosophy and really feeling some thought systems chimed well with me. There was one book that kept me intrigued and it's that which I want to return, to read and see if line by line it gives me any further pause or insight reading it from twice the number of years on Earth. That book was the eponymous 庄子, transliterated as Chuang Tzu or Zhuangzi, who was a representative "Taoist/Daoist" thinker. He is probably the "number 2" in the canon behind 老子 (Laotzu/Laozi). But whereas Laozi spoke in axioms, Zhuangzi liked to flesh things out in stories. The one section of his work that ruled them all, in my heart at least, was the second chapter 齐物论, a title which in its brevity could be translated as many things. I remember it translated as The Equality of Things and in my Uni days I wrote an A+ essay on it. Now I see in the text I've borrowed from the James Legge translation another title, The Adjustment of Controversies. (Such is the peril in translating a terse ideographic language!) The first title translation I think gets to the heart of what he talks about but certainly the idea certainly does come up of addressing controversy, the origination and nullification of disputes. Anyhow, may I introduce you Zhuangzi's second symphony/chapter as interpreted by James Legge (with small edits by me):
Dze-khi was seated, leaning forward on his stool. He was looking up to heaven and breathed gently, seeming to be in a trance, and to have lost all consciousness of any companion. His disciple, Dze-yu, who was in attendance and standing before him, said, 'What is this? Can the body be made to become thus like a withered tree, and the mind to become like slaked lime? His appearance as he leans forward on the stool today is such as I never saw him have before in the same position.' Dze-khi said, 'Dze-yu, you do well to ask such a question, I had just now lost myself; but how should you understand it? You have heard the musical notes of Man, but have not heard those of Earth; you may have heard the notes of Earth, but have not heard those of Heaven.'
Dze-yu replied, 'I venture to ask from you a description of all these.'
The reply was, 'When the breath of nature comes strongly, it is called Wind. Sometimes it does not come so; but when it does, then from a myriad apertures there issues its excited noise;—have you not heard it in a prolonged gale? Take the projecting bluff of a mountain forest;—in the great trees, a hundred spans round, the apertures and cavities are like the nostrils, or the mouth, or the ears; now square, now round like a cup or a mortar; here like a wet footprint, and there like a large puddle. The sounds issuing from them are like those of fretted water, of the whizz of an arrow, of the stern command, of the inhaling of the breath, of the shout, of the gruff note, of the deep wail, of the sad and piping note. The first notes are slight, and those that follow deeper, but in harmony with them. Gentle winds produce a small response; violent winds a great one. When the fierce gusts have passed away, all the apertures are empty and still;—have you not seen this in the bending and quivering of the branches and leaves?'
Dze-yu said, 'The notes of Earth then are simply those which come from its myriad apertures; and the notes of Man may just be compared to those which are brought from the tubes of bamboo;—allow me to ask about the notes of Heaven .' Dze-khi replied, 'When the wind blows, the sounds from the myriad apertures are different, and its cessation makes them stop of themselves. Both of these things arise from the wind and the apertures themselves:—should there be any other agency that excites them? Great knowledge is wide and comprehensive; small knowledge is partial and restricted. Great speech is exact and complete; small speech is merely so much talk . When we sleep, the soul communicates with what is external to us; when we awake, the body is set free. Our intercourse with others then leads to various activity, and daily there is the striving of mind with mind. There are hesitancies; deep difficulties; reservations; small apprehensions causing restless distress, and great apprehensions producing endless fears. Where their utterances are like arrows from a bow, we have those who feel it their charge to pronounce what is right and what is wrong.; where they are given out like the conditions of a covenant, we have those who maintain their views, determined to overcome. The weakness of their arguments, like the decay of things in autumn and winter, shows the failing of the minds of some from day to day; or it is like their water which, once voided, cannot be gathered up again. Then their ideas seem as if fast bound with cords, showing that the mind is become like an old and dry moat, and that it is nigh to death, and cannot be restored to vigour and brightness.
Joy and anger, sadness and pleasure, anticipation and regret, fickleness and fixedness, vehemence and indolence, eagerness and tardiness;—all these moods, like music from an empty tube, or mushrooms from the warm moisture, day and night succeed to one another and come before us, and we do not know whence they sprout. Let us stop! Let us stop! Can we expect to find out suddenly how they are produced?'
May I just say as writing from any era that the above stands as an awesomely sustained prose: The notes of Earth - wind and the sounds of natural air flow; the notes of man, music; but the notes of heaven is where we get our controversies. What is it that causes all the conflict, noise, highs and lows? Why when you get any set of people together "things happen"? Why do people choose to die intellectually on "that hill" while pissing in the breeze. All of our angular personalities clanging and howling to create the "notes of Heaven". The Big Bang might have been a bit of a blast, but the residual energy coalesced into stars, and mass pulled them together into orbits; till nuclear reactions caused them to become unstable and eventually collapse to form heavier elements and thus planets. Heavenly music. A peaceful stone age clan cleaves in two and occupy two sides of a mountain range, and through a dispute over seniority and tribalism initiate small conflicts that beget grudges that end in open warfare.
When I was young, I was full of confidence in my knowing and knowledge, and I would choose fact over tact; and was often inarticulately bumbling in social situations. Of course, reading those words above didn't slow me down. Knowing seem to be a sensual thing. I recall even in high school feeling like my mind could wrap around knowledge. Touch it. Smother it. Love it. Probably my love of chess and language came from the fact that there was a feeling that they were inexhaustible. Knowledge though seemed to be limited. Perhaps my mind still viewed knowledge like a finite series of encyclopaedias. It bred the feeling I could look down on others from what little pile of information I had acquired. And that little pile was often my hill to die on.
While the topic has been on the controversies, you can see below the equivalences beneath. There is no need for the full-throated disputes when there is nothing but the shapes, apertures and holes of ourselves as humans which is but an objective form and distinction inherent in all of us.
Perhaps it's the 40 thing. In Chinese, there is a saying: 四十而不惑, which means that once you're forty, you are clear about the world. Maybe there comes a point where it's just so much harder to surprise you with an idea when you've seen so many things before.
I remember when I was almost twenty reading Chinese philosophy and really feeling some thought systems chimed well with me. There was one book that kept me intrigued and it's that which I want to return, to read and see if line by line it gives me any further pause or insight reading it from twice the number of years on Earth. That book was the eponymous 庄子, transliterated as Chuang Tzu or Zhuangzi, who was a representative "Taoist/Daoist" thinker. He is probably the "number 2" in the canon behind 老子 (Laotzu/Laozi). But whereas Laozi spoke in axioms, Zhuangzi liked to flesh things out in stories. The one section of his work that ruled them all, in my heart at least, was the second chapter 齐物论, a title which in its brevity could be translated as many things. I remember it translated as The Equality of Things and in my Uni days I wrote an A+ essay on it. Now I see in the text I've borrowed from the James Legge translation another title, The Adjustment of Controversies. (Such is the peril in translating a terse ideographic language!) The first title translation I think gets to the heart of what he talks about but certainly the idea certainly does come up of addressing controversy, the origination and nullification of disputes. Anyhow, may I introduce you Zhuangzi's second symphony/chapter as interpreted by James Legge (with small edits by me):
Dze-khi was seated, leaning forward on his stool. He was looking up to heaven and breathed gently, seeming to be in a trance, and to have lost all consciousness of any companion. His disciple, Dze-yu, who was in attendance and standing before him, said, 'What is this? Can the body be made to become thus like a withered tree, and the mind to become like slaked lime? His appearance as he leans forward on the stool today is such as I never saw him have before in the same position.' Dze-khi said, 'Dze-yu, you do well to ask such a question, I had just now lost myself; but how should you understand it? You have heard the musical notes of Man, but have not heard those of Earth; you may have heard the notes of Earth, but have not heard those of Heaven.'
Dze-yu replied, 'I venture to ask from you a description of all these.'
The reply was, 'When the breath of nature comes strongly, it is called Wind. Sometimes it does not come so; but when it does, then from a myriad apertures there issues its excited noise;—have you not heard it in a prolonged gale? Take the projecting bluff of a mountain forest;—in the great trees, a hundred spans round, the apertures and cavities are like the nostrils, or the mouth, or the ears; now square, now round like a cup or a mortar; here like a wet footprint, and there like a large puddle. The sounds issuing from them are like those of fretted water, of the whizz of an arrow, of the stern command, of the inhaling of the breath, of the shout, of the gruff note, of the deep wail, of the sad and piping note. The first notes are slight, and those that follow deeper, but in harmony with them. Gentle winds produce a small response; violent winds a great one. When the fierce gusts have passed away, all the apertures are empty and still;—have you not seen this in the bending and quivering of the branches and leaves?'
Dze-yu said, 'The notes of Earth then are simply those which come from its myriad apertures; and the notes of Man may just be compared to those which are brought from the tubes of bamboo;—allow me to ask about the notes of Heaven .' Dze-khi replied, 'When the wind blows, the sounds from the myriad apertures are different, and its cessation makes them stop of themselves. Both of these things arise from the wind and the apertures themselves:—should there be any other agency that excites them? Great knowledge is wide and comprehensive; small knowledge is partial and restricted. Great speech is exact and complete; small speech is merely so much talk . When we sleep, the soul communicates with what is external to us; when we awake, the body is set free. Our intercourse with others then leads to various activity, and daily there is the striving of mind with mind. There are hesitancies; deep difficulties; reservations; small apprehensions causing restless distress, and great apprehensions producing endless fears. Where their utterances are like arrows from a bow, we have those who feel it their charge to pronounce what is right and what is wrong.; where they are given out like the conditions of a covenant, we have those who maintain their views, determined to overcome. The weakness of their arguments, like the decay of things in autumn and winter, shows the failing of the minds of some from day to day; or it is like their water which, once voided, cannot be gathered up again. Then their ideas seem as if fast bound with cords, showing that the mind is become like an old and dry moat, and that it is nigh to death, and cannot be restored to vigour and brightness.
Joy and anger, sadness and pleasure, anticipation and regret, fickleness and fixedness, vehemence and indolence, eagerness and tardiness;—all these moods, like music from an empty tube, or mushrooms from the warm moisture, day and night succeed to one another and come before us, and we do not know whence they sprout. Let us stop! Let us stop! Can we expect to find out suddenly how they are produced?'
May I just say as writing from any era that the above stands as an awesomely sustained prose: The notes of Earth - wind and the sounds of natural air flow; the notes of man, music; but the notes of heaven is where we get our controversies. What is it that causes all the conflict, noise, highs and lows? Why when you get any set of people together "things happen"? Why do people choose to die intellectually on "that hill" while pissing in the breeze. All of our angular personalities clanging and howling to create the "notes of Heaven". The Big Bang might have been a bit of a blast, but the residual energy coalesced into stars, and mass pulled them together into orbits; till nuclear reactions caused them to become unstable and eventually collapse to form heavier elements and thus planets. Heavenly music. A peaceful stone age clan cleaves in two and occupy two sides of a mountain range, and through a dispute over seniority and tribalism initiate small conflicts that beget grudges that end in open warfare.
When I was young, I was full of confidence in my knowing and knowledge, and I would choose fact over tact; and was often inarticulately bumbling in social situations. Of course, reading those words above didn't slow me down. Knowing seem to be a sensual thing. I recall even in high school feeling like my mind could wrap around knowledge. Touch it. Smother it. Love it. Probably my love of chess and language came from the fact that there was a feeling that they were inexhaustible. Knowledge though seemed to be limited. Perhaps my mind still viewed knowledge like a finite series of encyclopaedias. It bred the feeling I could look down on others from what little pile of information I had acquired. And that little pile was often my hill to die on.
While the topic has been on the controversies, you can see below the equivalences beneath. There is no need for the full-throated disputes when there is nothing but the shapes, apertures and holes of ourselves as humans which is but an objective form and distinction inherent in all of us.
Monday, June 01, 2020
Burning questions
Tālofa lava! Last week was Vaiaso o le Gagana Sāmoa (Samoan Language Week). I hadn't had much interest in learning more gagana Sāmoa in the past. In previous years, I'd get the informative e-mails from our student support to recognise the week, but without much relevance to students, or real knowledge as staff, we haven't really recognised or observed another language besides English (whereas we do try hard, not surprisingly, during Te Wiki o te Reo Māori and the week of Waitangi Day). But this week I paid more attention: I was going to host a company event and it was appropriate that I get up with the programme! The event was our Zoom "Kai and Kōrero" whole company meeting, which flourished during the lockdown in an effort to get the whole Group together for some sharing or announcements. I was chosen in order to share what was happening in our school, its struggles with the closed border and its rapid downsizing, but with the main purpose being to try to get people to think how they'd share their love/aroha/alofa with those who are struggling and how to show their strength/finau in coming to terms with the changes.
Gagana Sāmoa is significantly different from te Reo Māori but the outlines of their linguistic kinship are apparent with time, especially with the cognates like aroha and alofa but also some of the grammar. Samoan seems to have a clearer system of registers that reminds me a little of what little Tagalog I learned. In some ways, I'd say the distance is about the same as Mandarin and Cantonese.
Our Group has a policy for raising the performance of Māori and Polynesian students, as do most tertiary institutions, and inclusion is but one element. We have one Polynesian manager currently on the same tier as me, who has been quite outspoken in the need to differentiate. (I say Polynesian, because though she is a speaker of Samoan and English, I think she has Maori lineage, too.) And the needs are different. Why shouldn't they be? They have different history, cultures and relationships with other cultures.
"Māori" students for a start have a wide range of backgrounds, which as a non-sociologist, and non-Māori, I'll almost certainly misstate. Pretty much all Māori students in their family history have some history of colonisation. Some of them may have majority Māori whakapapa or with some mixing but still identify with that part of their heritage. Colonisation must set a weird internal contradiction: it stripped, invalidated and replaced one part of one's heritage; and yet there is another part of your heritage that has taken a superior place that sets the table very differently, even if you're seen as inferior.
Very few of these though would come from a traditional Māori culture that links to an unbroken line of values and traditions. While there is a Māori renaissance and increased cultural pride, mana whenua and strength, it may take generations to really show. Other Polynesians have had a strong cultural base and without basis I'd say this is a strong element in having better outcomes. Consistent, validated culture is a base for growth, dignity and positive decision making. Naturally, non-Maori Polynesians aren't exactly "uncolonised" and their traditional cultures also have aspects that may be maladaptive to modern learning (an emphasis on hierarchy and patriarchy, for example). But their academic performance, to my knowledge, shows that they do better overall. This comes to my mind more because my future work might be going much more into this sphere and my understanding of these things must inform my decisions. The above I hope isn't patronising - I have a lot to learn still.
Currently a lot of New Zealand still thinks in terms of "brown" people and "white" people, when actually neither block is monolithic. I think this realisation is increasingly internalised by people. But while we are getting better here, America doesn't seem like they could do much worse. Leaving aside the current burning, it's astonishing that the notions of "black" and "white" are still largely unchallenged. Again, which as a non-sociologist, and non-American of either colour, I'll almost certainly misstate: still basically the three largest racial blocks are "black" "white" and "latino", where "black" means looking darker skinned as a result of any genetic mixing with anyone from an African heritage; "white" means having a white appearance, and usually ascribing to being "white". (I'll put Latino to the side for brevity.) You can see this when Barack Obama is considered the first "Black" President when he was as "white" as he was "black". Even though the "Black" parent was not in his life significantly, his father wasn't an African-American, he was Kenyan. Since "Black" usually refers to "African-American" and the history of enslaved, forced immigration and servitude, with an erosion of culture and language. Not that that is any less or more of a comment on his worth, nor detract from African Americans. The dark humour of society is that when others apply the colour lens to someone, and that person buys into the tag attached to them, they start to identify differently to what their roots might indicate they should.
The United States has been messed up for some time in regards to its race relations. Pre-Trump, there was a latent, not-so-hidden belief that the true, successful America was "White" america (let me distinguish it as the small "a" America, a non-inclusive anachronism), just like my father would have said the true new zealand is the white, tax-paying majority and that the brown people are ruining it. But both NZ and US are covered by the superficial platitudes and norms, as well as the trend toward further mixing and acceptance of diversity, which without some systemic change might eventually capitulate the change. In the meantime, the "others" are partially disenfranchised from the systems, should feel grateful for their near equality and accept the rougher corners of being a profiled minority with grace. In the US, Trump and his proxies have ratcheted this up as he wants to make america great again at the expense of America.
The current troubles there lie in the inability of the same platitudes that have worked in the past to smooth out the ripples of a single death in police hands. That's because it's not one death, and not one incident nor just official racism but the license given to non-official racism, in 2020, you could just search the ABC of names with their crimes: Ahmaud Arbery (running "while black"), Breona Taylor (sleeping "while black"), Christian Cooper (birdwatching "while black"). The rest of the alphabet won't stand idly on this topic either.
The protests and the accompanying riots are horrendous. But there is no leadership or political solution to the burning question at the heart of the outrage that has brought the majority of protesters to the street. How are you going to address the profiling and violent excesses within the police and justice system? If there is no answer, even brute military suppression will leave the wounds unhealed. Ridiculously, the police and national guards have seemingly been licensed to control protest with the use of force, which is the reason the protesters are out there. The equation is even more wrong in that with a large number of people unemployed, often cut off from relief, they are even more likely to fuse their economic rage with their social rage.
The media never seem to differentiate protesting from looting. I have no experience or real knowledge to tap into this, but from my remote standpoint, they shouldn't be mixed, although often exist together. Protests are a huge diversion of police force. If I were in organised crime, with no horse in the race, I'd prepare for harvest time. If I were an agent provocateur, for either left or right, I would be getting my explosives prepared. And if I were a hungry, economically disenfranchised person I wouldn't be able to tell the difference after the shop windows have been smashed and the goods are there for the taking. And the protesters are not usually criminals, agent provocateurs although they may be the disenfranchised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)